Posted by gunste
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Mar 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm

Obviously they were not members of a well regulated militia as suggested by the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let the Court read that very narrowly and require such militia membership for all who own military style weapons.

Where's the correct photo? 4 long guns that are bolt action (only fires one at a time) and 3 shot guns hardly qualify as assault rifles. The revolvers and pistols are also passe. But no mention of the hatchet nor the knife. After O.J. lets ban the knives too!

Yes, the issue was parolees and those on probation should not be allowed to have these weapons that are legal to own in CA.

Posted by Rational Gun Guy
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 23, 2013 at 9:26 am

@ Rational Guy - universal background checks? Actually, as a firearm owner I support the concept of universal checks. To be perfectly clear, and to show I am not trying to parse a phrase, that is "universal" as in "all sales, public or private".

The simple way to do that is to expand the system we have here in California - All firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. The buyer must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements (which include a background check). The only exceptions to this requirements are transfers between immediate family members.

The system works - it runs a background check (which to me is rational) and does not "register" the firearm (which to me is objectionable). A failed background check would then halt the sale - which is something I think we all (pro and anti firearm folks) agree on.

So, I support background checks on all sales as we currently have here in California.

I welcome this discussion as long as it doesn't get personal. Hyperbole does not help the discussion.